Our View: Merit selection for judges merits study

All six serve on the Pennsylvania Supreme Court. They were elected by voters who also choose the 15 judges on the Pennsylvania Superior Court and the nine judges on the Pennsylvania Commonwealth Court, often with little knowledge of the candidates beyond their names, gender and perhaps the county where they live.

Four former Pennsylvania governors -- Republicans Dick Thornburgh and Tom Ridge and Democrats George Leader and Ed Rendell -- say that a merit system would be a better way to choose judges for Pennsylvania's appellate court system, and they use the example of Joan Orie Melvin to bolster their case.

You likely have heard of Orie Melvin. Suspended as a state Supreme Court justice in August, Orie Melvin was convicted on Feb. 21 of public corruption for using taxpayer-paid staffers in her campaigns for state Supreme Court -- in 2003, when she lost, and in 2009, when she won. Orie Melvin submitted her resignation to Gov. Tom Corbett, effective May 1, and will be sentenced May 7.

The former governors explained their support for merit selection in a joint letter on March 18 to the Pennsylvania Legislature and Corbett. "The conviction of a Supreme Court justice for campaign corruption is just one more example that highlights the need for reform," they wrote. "Electing appellate court judges in divisive, expensive, partisan elections is not working for the people of Pennsylvania. This is an issue that transcends politics, party lines, and individual agendas."

They support a system proposed by Pennsylvanians for Modern Courts, in which a citizen commission would recommend the most qualified candidates to the governor and the state Senate would confirm the candidates. After four years, the judges would face a vote for retention for 10 years.

The current system "puts a premium on how much money you can raise," Thornburgh said in a conference call with reporters. "It's not an election run on issues. It's very rare that the average person has any knowledge of the individual, other than what's imparted by TV advertising."

Ridge said: "The whole process casts a very dark shadow, a heavy cloud, over the integrity, the independence of the judicial system." Rendell said: "The influence of money in judicial elections is pernicious and creates a feeling among ordinary folks that the system is for sale."

The change would require a constitutional amendment. The Legislature must approve identical bills in two consecutive sessions. Voters would then have to approve the change by a referendum.

This is a serious proposal with bipartisan support, backed by research. Lawmakers should start the process to change to merit selection for appellate judges. Learn more at www.pmconline.org.